On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 09:57:47PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 12:51:27PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > [...]
> > To make everything work properly, adjust certain functions to match the
> > type of the ->show() and ->store() members in 'struct kobj_attribute'.
> > Add a macro to generate functions for that can be called via both
> > dev_attr_{show,store}() or kobj_attr_{show,store}() so that they can be
> > called through both kobject locations without violating kCFI and adjust
> > the attribute groups to account for this.
>
> This was quite a roller coaster! I think the solution looks good, even
> if I'm suspicious of the original design that has the same stuff
> available twice in different places. (I have a dim memory of rdma
> needing a refactoring like this too?)
Right, I noticed this comment in intel_gt_sysfs_register() once I fully
saw what was going on:
/*
* We need to make things right with the
* ABI compatibility. The files were originally
* generated under the parent directory.
*
* We generate the files only for gt 0
* to avoid duplicates.
*/
Makes it seem like there will be userspace breakage if these files do
not exist? I figured this was the cleanest solution within those
parameters.
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for looking it over!
Cheers,
Nathan
